ArticleBMC emergency medicine2026
ECPR readiness without perfusionist support: a cross-sectional national survey on circuit preparation, team structure, and training.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is a time-critical intervention for selected patients with refractory cardiac arrest. Survival depends on minimizing low-flow duration before ECPR initiation. Timely deployment requires organizational preparedness, trained personnel, and rapid extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) circuit readiness. However, data on ECPR organization in centers operating without dedicated perfusionist support are limited.
methodsA nationwide cross-sectional online survey was conducted among German ECMO centers operating without perfusionist support. The questionnaire assessed circuit readiness, responsible personnel, training frequency, and the availability of standard operating procedures (SOPs).
resultsResponses from 42 centers were evaluated, of which 64% reported performing ECPR (n = 27). Most centers (90%, n = 38) had low annual ECMO volumes (< 50 cases). ECMO use was largely limited to the Cardiohelp and iLA activve/Xenios Console systems. Setup times were significantly shorter for ECPR than for non-ECPR ECMO: median 15 min (IQR 12-18; range 5-30) versus 30 min (IQR 20-40; range 15-105) (Mann-Whitney U = 46, p < 0.0001; Cliff's delta = 0.77; 95% CI 0.54-0.94). Nurses were more frequently involved in ECMO deployment in ECPR than in non-ECPR settings (59% (16/27 centers) vs. 20% (3/15 centers)). Within ECPR programs, regular training was reported more frequently for nurses than for physicians (87.5% (14/16 centers) vs. 60% (6/10 centers)). Overall, 76% (n = 32) of centers reported regular training (at least annually) for responsible personnel, 86% (n = 36) had internal SOPs in place, and 69% (n = 29) expressed the need for a universally applicable evidence-based SOP. All centers that reported a pre-defined maximum storage duration (n = 28) adhered to the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization guidelines regarding maximum storage duration of pre-assembled ECMO systems (30 days).
conclusionsGerman ECMO centers without perfusionist support reported substantial heterogeneity in ECPR readiness and operational workflows. ECPR-performing centers were associated with shorter setup times and more frequently reported interdisciplinary team structures and recurrent team training. These findings describe current organizational practices and perceived needs and support the value of interdisciplinary teamwork, structured training, and standardized protocols as organizational components that may facilitate timely, standardized ECPR deployment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.